Search Forums

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

ID ain't Science!!!

Seems like the courts finally got one right, and no mistake. Federal Judge denotes that ID is simply a religious ideal and NOT science. No comparing it to evolution, bud and that's the end of it...

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — 'Intelligent design" cannot be mentioned in biology classes in a Pennsylvania public school district, a federal judge said Tuesday, ruling in one of the biggest courtroom clashes on evolution since the 1925 Scopes trial.

A sure victory for science in the classroom and at large, one wonders if this decision will impact the Kansas case at all?

Any of you legal types have an answer?

For those of us who said, I told ya so.... I told ya so!

But if you do not find an intelligent companion, a wise and well-behaved person going the same way as yourself, then go on your way alone, like a king abandoning a conquered kingdom, or like a great elephant in the deep forest. - Buddha

Re: ID ain't Science!!!

I do not think this will have much impact on Kansas or the Creationist movement in general. Remember, they are NOT making a scientific case for creationism. They are making a POLITICAL case. They are appealing to SOME(a vocal minority?) Christians' sense of duty and faith as well as general ignorance of science. Putting a scientist in a gladiatorial arena will only bring about confusion and maybe cheers for the opponenet of the scientist.

Look what happened in the O.J. Simpson case. You had 12 jurors who did not know DNA from bubble gum and Barry Shreck was able to convince them of all manner of hogwash.
Creationists are trying to convicne NON-SCIENTISTS of their case, not scientists and that is a telling fact.

Re: ID ain't Science!!!

Originally Posted by Slipnish

A sure victory for science in the classroom and at large, one wonders if this decision will impact the Kansas case at all?

Any of you legal types have an answer?

It won't have any binding legal effect, but it surely sends the message to the "ID crowd" that no one is buying is their bull that ID is a viable, scientific alternative to the theory of evolution (or, in the words of the Federal Court, "[w]e conclude that the religious nature of ID would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child.")

With respect to the nature of the decision, it was a strong and definitive blow to ID, stating that with respect to the Dover school board's policy, it "singles out the theory of evolution for special treatment, misrepresents its status in the scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a science resource and instructs students to forgo scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere."

I also thought it interesting that the court made it a point to criticize the school board and the "breathtaking inanity" of the school board's decision. As the court stated, “[i]t is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy." The court continued, "[t]hose who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred. ... Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. ... The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."

In short, ID got knocked the fk out. Today is a great day for this country.

Re: ID ain't Science!!!

"To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions," Jones writes.

Aaaaaaannnnd Sig!!!!

Looks like the court got this one right. They correctly identified ID as a form of Creationism, recognized that it's grounded in religion and has no place in a science class. Go Pennsylvania! I love ya. /\ /\

Re: ID ain't Science!!!

Bravo for evolution. But still, the fact that it had to go to Court...well that says a LOT.

But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.

Re: A victory for knowledge, learning, and truth

This judge is overstepping his bounds in deciding what is and is not science. The curriculum of a public school is decided by the board. If teachers feel the need to mention intelligent design as a possible alternative, so be it. It is no business of the federal government's.

Re: A victory for knowledge, learning, and truth

Originally Posted by KevinBrowning

This judge is overstepping his bounds in deciding what is and is not science. The curriculum of a public school is decided by the board. If teachers feel the need to mention intelligent design as a possible alternative, so be it. It is no business of the federal government's.

Why is it I knew I would just have to disagree with you?

The Feds are providing some of the funds for education, so they do have a say.

While laughing at others stupidity, you may want to contemplate your own comedic talents. (link)Disclaimer: This information is being provided for informational, educational, and entertainment purposes only.

Re: A victory for knowledge, learning, and truth

"That school board mandated the teaching for ninth-grade biology classes and directed school libraries to purchase an alternative textbook, "Of Pandas and People," which advocated the concept. The town has since voted out eight of nine board members."
Go people. Anything outside of testable science has no place in a science class. They are perfectly within their limits to encourage to keep a open mind, by saying something like "Evolution is one popular way things might have happened. Some people believe differently; you may want to ask your parents what they think." However, teaching it as a science is ludicrous.

Re: A victory for knowledge, learning, and truth

Originally Posted by SnoopCitySid

Why is it I knew I would just have to disagree with you?

The Feds are providing some of the funds for education, so they do have a say.

The government provides very little public school money. It is almost all from local taxpayers, or richer taxpayers in other districts through "Robin Hood" programs. I am not saying the government does not have jurisdiction over public schools, but that the issue of curriculum should be left to the school boards and teachers. Judges are not qualified to decide what is and is not legitimate to include in a science class.

Re: A victory for knowledge, learning, and truth

Originally Posted by KevinBrowning

The government provides very little public school money. It is almost all from local taxpayers, or richer taxpayers in other districts through "Robin Hood" programs. I am not saying the government does not have jurisdiction over public schools, but that the issue of curriculum should be left to the school boards and teachers. Judges are not qualified to decide what is and is not legitimate to include in a science class.

So who is then? Science teachers seem like the most appropriate choice to make the decision.

Why don't we poll the nation's science teachers and let them decide the national policy?

Re: ID ain't Science!!!

Originally Posted by GodlessSkept

I do not think this will have much impact on Kansas or the Creationist movement in general. Remember, they are NOT making a scientific case for creationism. They are making a POLITICAL case. They are appealing to SOME(a vocal minority?) Christians' sense of duty and faith as well as general ignorance of science. Putting a scientist in a gladiatorial arena will only bring about confusion and maybe cheers for the opponenet of the scientist.

Look what happened in the O.J. Simpson case. You had 12 jurors who did not know DNA from bubble gum and Barry Shreck was able to convince them of all manner of hogwash.
Creationists are trying to convicne NON-SCIENTISTS of their case, not scientists and that is a telling fact.

I agree, but I was thinking from a legal perspective that precedent carried some weight in those circles.

Personally, I've read some of the debate logs between creationists and scientists, and never fail to get somewhat tickled by the creationists claim of victory...

ID is more political than anything and Behe himself admitted under oath that in order for it to science one had to change the definition of science.

Interesting tack for a scientist, huh?

But if you do not find an intelligent companion, a wise and well-behaved person going the same way as yourself, then go on your way alone, like a king abandoning a conquered kingdom, or like a great elephant in the deep forest. - Buddha

That ID is not science is not merely the opinion of this one man but the scientific community overall, as well as breaking the principals of the scientific method.

The government provides very little public school money.

Oh come on Kev, call yourself a conservative? If the federal gummermint contributes one single cent of funding they then had federal power over the entity.

That's why NGOs are called NGOs, why churchs aren't faced with low (bribe) taxes or (threat) high taxes etc. It's why my own org, the IMN, does not register as a charity and seek a government license. The moment you invite the government in you lose your rights.

P.

"The intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy."
head of MI6

"The Emory University study proves beyond a doubt that politicians and their acolytes - are lying morons."

"We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it."
Justice Jackson Nov. 21, 1945, Nuremberg

Re: A victory for knowledge, learning, and truth

Originally Posted by KevinBrowning

This judge is overstepping his bounds in deciding what is and is not science.

You need a civics lesson, bad. A judge is a trier of fact (in this case), based on evidence set forth by both sides at trial. The issue in this case was whether ID is merely creationism with lipstick (which it is) and if so, the teaching ID is unconstitional (per the Supreme Court of the United States). The role of the federal courts, Kev, is to decide federal issues which in this case amount to whether the teaching of ID in public schools runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution. Who's going to decide that issue, Kev, if not the federal courts? Are you going to argue that the school board and not the judiciary have the authority to answer the question of whether the teaching of ID is violative of the U.S. Constitution? Are you really trying to argue that a federal judge overstepped his bounds by ruling on whether the teaching of ID in public schools violates the U.S. Constitution?

Moreover, the only people who overstepped their bounds were the ex-school board members who pushed a religious doctrine in public schools while putting the education of those school kids at risk by misrepresenting established scientific principles.

Re: A victory for knowledge, learning, and truth

Originally Posted by Booger

You need a civics lesson, bad. A judge is a trier of fact (in this case), based on evidence set forth by both sides at trial. The issue in this case was whether ID is merely creationism with lipstick (which it is) and if so, the teaching ID is unconstitional (per the Supreme Court of the United States). The role of the federal courts, Kev, is to decide federal issues which in this case amount to whether the teaching of ID in public schools runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution. Who's going to decide that issue, Kev, if not the federal courts? Are you going to argue that the school board and not the judiciary have the authority to answer the question of whether the teaching of ID is violative of the U.S. Constitution? Are you really trying to argue that a federal judge overstepped his bounds by ruling on whether the teaching of ID in public schools violates the U.S. Constitution?

Moreover, the only people who overstepped their bounds were the ex-school board members who pushed a religious doctrine in public schools while putting the education of those school kids at risk by misrepresenting established scientific principles.

I think Science should determine what is science and what is not, if anything, Big Bang is hardly scientific, especially when we have no evidence that it ever occured. It's such a ridiculous extrapolation, it was not witnessed, and I wonder how you can use science to measure, observe, and test the Big Bang, yeah... it's totally scientific because it's an unsupported hypothesis and conjectured predictions trying to explain what happened.

Personally, I don't see how the Big Bang is sufficient for school circulum either, when it has very little, if none, scientific foundation. You can show me as many links as you want, but the fact reminds, it was never observed, thus, it can't really be tested. Although, we see evidence for ID even today; all intelligent life comes from an intelligent source. Yet, we argue that intelligence derived from completely random probablity/chance. It's funny how everything works out in the Big Bang theory, like as if it was directed and orderly, which is contrary to unorderly chaos..

"With His dying breath... He saved me, with His wounds... He healed me, with His life... He died for me, although I never met Him, He remembered... me."

Re: A victory for knowledge, learning, and truth

Originally Posted by ShadowKnight

I think Science should determine what is science and what is not, if anything, Big Bang is hardly scientific, especially when we have no evidence that it ever occured. It's such a ridiculous extrapolation, it was not witnessed, and I wonder how you can use science to measure, observe, and test the Big Bang, yeah... it's totally scientific because it's an unsupported hypothesis and conjectured predictions trying to explain what happened.

Personally, I don't see how the Big Bang is sufficient for school circulum either, when it has very little, if none, scientific foundation. You can show me as many links as you want, but the fact reminds, it was never observed, thus, it can't really be tested. Although, we see evidence for ID even today; all intelligent life comes from an intelligent source. Yet, we argue that intelligence derived from completely random probablity/chance. It's funny how everything works out in the Big Bang theory, like as if it was directed and orderly, which is contrary to unorderly chaos..

I'm sick to death of this theistic determination to take our mindset back to the Dark Ages. We spend thousands of years toiling in ignorance until, finally, the light of science brings us real explanations for unknowns. But what do you do? Simply because you haven't familiarized yourself with a particular branch of science or that branch hasn't unlocked EVERYTHING you want to move BACK to those dark ages.

Look, we all know that you think Western culture would be nothing without Christianity and that many early scientists were also Christians. Have some respect for them. Have some respect for the faculties you believe your god graced you with. If you can't do that, then simply acknowledge that SCIENCE is its own discipline independent of theism. Just as you wouldn't demand "Lord of the Rings" to be taught as ligitimate history, don't stamp your feet and demand that creationism be taught as science.

Creationism is NOT science. The Big Bang is.

I.D. is NOT science. Evolution is.

None of those four ideas can tell us all the answers we want to know. Only two of them are real theories. Only two of them AREN'T dead ends to our inquiry.

Re: A victory for knowledge, learning, and truth

Originally Posted by Booger

You need a civics lesson, bad.

Well, I've never taken a civics class, but I have a working knowledge of the legal system.

A judge is a trier of fact (in this case), based on evidence set forth by both sides at trial. The issue in this case was whether ID is merely creationism with lipstick (which it is) and if so, the teaching ID is unconstitional (per the Supreme Court of the United States). The role of the federal courts, Kev, is to decide federal issues which in this case amount to whether the teaching of ID in public schools runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution. Who's going to decide that issue, Kev, if not the federal courts?

Yes, a judge tries the facts. And the relevant fact in the case is who has the authority to determine public school curriculum. The obvious answer would be those who have qualifications in the subject, such as the teachers themselves, and the appropriate members of the school board. I see this as similar to Roe v. Wade, another case where judges acted as if they were the ultimate authority on an academic discipline.

Are you going to argue that the school board and not the judiciary have the authority to answer the question of whether the teaching of ID is violative of the U.S. Constitution? Are you really trying to argue that a federal judge overstepped his bounds by ruling on whether the teaching of ID in public schools violates the U.S. Constitution?

There is no constitutional issue here. Intelligent design does not presuppose God or gods. It can be viewed within a religious context, just as evolution can.

Moreover, the only people who overstepped their bounds were the ex-school board members who pushed a religious doctrine in public schools while putting the education of those school kids at risk by misrepresenting established scientific principles.